1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.2175-2178 OF 2018
IN
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION Nos.1-4 OF 2016
IN
AND WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.421-424 OF 2016
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.6828-6831 OF 2016
DR. VIJAY MALLYA …PETITIONER
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated
09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in SLP
(C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of
2016.
2
2. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in
detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following
features.
(A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners
(‘banks’, for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of
Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three
Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy
Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on
26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or
dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT,
Bengaluru was:-
“(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent
Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…”
(B) When the matter reached the High Court of Karnataka, two orders
were passed by the High Court on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013, the relevant
portion of the first Order being:-
“In that view, there shall be interim order of injunction
against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from transferring,
alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in
respect of movable as well as immovable properties
belonging to them until further order in these petitions.”
3
(C) Admittedly, the amount of US$ 40 million which was part of the
sum of US$75 million was received in the account of respondent No.3 on
25.02.2016 and within few days, that is, on 26.02.2016 and 29.02.2016,
said amount of US$ 40 million was transferred out of that account by
respondent No.3.
(D) Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, no clear disclosure
of his assets was made by respondent No.3, nor any details of in-flow and
out-flow of said amount of US$ 40 million were disclosed by him. As a
matter of fact, the existence of the concerned Bank account itself was not
disclosed.
3. In the circumstances, on the issue whether he was guilty of
contempt of court, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 that in
terms of the directions issued by this Court, he was required to disclose the
assets as on 31.03.2016 and as such no direction issued by this Court was
violated; and that the violation, if any, was of the orders passed by the High
Court and, therefore, this Court ought not to proceed in contempt
jurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.3
was found guilty of contempt of court on following two counts: -
“(a) He is guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this
Court in not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was
directed by this Court.
4
(b) He is guilty of violating the express Orders of Restraint
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in the same Cause
from which the present proceedings have arisen.”
4. During the course of its judgment, this Court relied upon the
response filed by the banks to the “further counter affidavit” filed by
respondent No.3. This response had adverted to the oral undertaking given
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before DRT, Bengaluru and to the orders dated
03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
5. It must be stated here that the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by
this Court had given liberty to respondent No.3 to file reply to the
aforesaid response of the banks. It appears from the record that a reply
was filed by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017. However, it was observed in
Para19 of the judgment under review as under:-
“19. Despite the aforesaid Order dated 11.01.2017
which took note of the violation of the orders passed
by the High Court of Karnataka and though time was
sought to file reply, nothing was filed in reply or
rebuttal by Respondent No.3.”
To similar effect were the observations in Para 27 of the Judgment that
no reply was filed by respondent No.3:-
6. In the instant Review Petitions, it is specifically asserted in ground
“V” as under:-
5
“(v) FOR THAT this Hon’ble Court while passing the
said judgment has erred in recording that the Review
Petitioner did not file a reply or rebuttal to the
response dated 8th December 2017 (“Response”) filed
by the Respondent Banks (Original Petitioners).
Pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this
Hon’ble Court a reply dated 30th January, 2017 was
filed on behalf of the Review Petitioner to the
Respondents’ (Original Petitioners’) Response.”
7. The Review Petitions were placed in Chambers three years after
the filing. Taking note of the aforesaid ground, the Review Petitions were
directed to be placed in open Court. Thereafter, the concerned documents
including Memo of Filing dated 30.01.2017 and copy of the reply dated
30.01.2017 were placed for our perusal.
8. From these facts it is clear that it was an error on part of this Court
to have observed and proceeded on the premise that no reply was filed by
respondent No.3 to the response filed by the banks.
9. Mr. Jai Munim, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 was
therefore asked if there was anything in said reply dated 30.01.2017 (a)
which, in any way, contradicted or contested the basic submissions of the
banks that there was an oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru on
26.07.2013 and orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 were passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; (b) whether the text and the
purport of the undertaking and the orders were different from that
suggested in said response of the banks; and (c) whether any explanation
6
was forthcoming in the reply of respondent No.3 to support the stand that
he was not guilty of violation of said orders.
10. Mr. Munim, learned Advocate was unable to refer to any such
portion from the response of respondent No.3 on aforesaid aspects but
advanced submissions touching upon the questions whether the directions
issued by this Court were violated and whether this Court ought to have
proceeded to exercise contempt jurisdiction when the contempt, on second
count, was of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
11. The Review Petitions were listed for oral hearing to ascertain
whether the error on part of this Court in not taking into account the reply
dated 30.01.2017 had caused any prejudice to respondent No.3. The reply
dated 30.01.2017 had reiterated the submissions advanced earlier by
respondent No.3 and had not in any way contradicted the factum of oral
undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru and the orders passed by the High
Court of Karnataka or had offered any explanation why said oral
undertaking and the orders could not be relied upon.
12. Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully
considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions
were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our
considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-
7
hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out
any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
13. These Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
14. In Paras 30 and 31 of the judgment under review the contempt
petitions were directed to be listed on 10.07.2017 for hearing respondent
No.3 with regard to the proposed punishment. Now that the Review
Petitions are dismissed, we direct respondent No.3 to appear before this
Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m. and also direct the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to facilitate and ensure the
presence of respondent No.3 before this Court on that day. A copy of this
judgement be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for facility and
compliance.
15. List the Contempt Petitions on 05.10.2020.
……….……………..J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
……….…………….J
(Ashok Bhushan)
New Delhi;
August 31, 2020.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.2175-2178 OF 2018
IN
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION Nos.1-4 OF 2016
IN
AND WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.421-424 OF 2016
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.6828-6831 OF 2016
DR. VIJAY MALLYA …PETITIONER
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated
09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in SLP
(C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of
2016.
2
2. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in
detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following
features.
(A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners
(‘banks’, for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of
Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three
Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy
Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on
26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or
dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT,
Bengaluru was:-
“(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent
Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…”
(B) When the matter reached the High Court of Karnataka, two orders
were passed by the High Court on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013, the relevant
portion of the first Order being:-
“In that view, there shall be interim order of injunction
against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from transferring,
alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in
respect of movable as well as immovable properties
belonging to them until further order in these petitions.”
3
(C) Admittedly, the amount of US$ 40 million which was part of the
sum of US$75 million was received in the account of respondent No.3 on
25.02.2016 and within few days, that is, on 26.02.2016 and 29.02.2016,
said amount of US$ 40 million was transferred out of that account by
respondent No.3.
(D) Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, no clear disclosure
of his assets was made by respondent No.3, nor any details of in-flow and
out-flow of said amount of US$ 40 million were disclosed by him. As a
matter of fact, the existence of the concerned Bank account itself was not
disclosed.
3. In the circumstances, on the issue whether he was guilty of
contempt of court, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 that in
terms of the directions issued by this Court, he was required to disclose the
assets as on 31.03.2016 and as such no direction issued by this Court was
violated; and that the violation, if any, was of the orders passed by the High
Court and, therefore, this Court ought not to proceed in contempt
jurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.3
was found guilty of contempt of court on following two counts: -
“(a) He is guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this
Court in not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was
directed by this Court.
4
(b) He is guilty of violating the express Orders of Restraint
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in the same Cause
from which the present proceedings have arisen.”
4. During the course of its judgment, this Court relied upon the
response filed by the banks to the “further counter affidavit” filed by
respondent No.3. This response had adverted to the oral undertaking given
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before DRT, Bengaluru and to the orders dated
03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
5. It must be stated here that the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by
this Court had given liberty to respondent No.3 to file reply to the
aforesaid response of the banks. It appears from the record that a reply
was filed by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017. However, it was observed in
Para19 of the judgment under review as under:-
“19. Despite the aforesaid Order dated 11.01.2017
which took note of the violation of the orders passed
by the High Court of Karnataka and though time was
sought to file reply, nothing was filed in reply or
rebuttal by Respondent No.3.”
To similar effect were the observations in Para 27 of the Judgment that
no reply was filed by respondent No.3:-
6. In the instant Review Petitions, it is specifically asserted in ground
“V” as under:-
5
“(v) FOR THAT this Hon’ble Court while passing the
said judgment has erred in recording that the Review
Petitioner did not file a reply or rebuttal to the
response dated 8th December 2017 (“Response”) filed
by the Respondent Banks (Original Petitioners).
Pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this
Hon’ble Court a reply dated 30th January, 2017 was
filed on behalf of the Review Petitioner to the
Respondents’ (Original Petitioners’) Response.”
7. The Review Petitions were placed in Chambers three years after
the filing. Taking note of the aforesaid ground, the Review Petitions were
directed to be placed in open Court. Thereafter, the concerned documents
including Memo of Filing dated 30.01.2017 and copy of the reply dated
30.01.2017 were placed for our perusal.
8. From these facts it is clear that it was an error on part of this Court
to have observed and proceeded on the premise that no reply was filed by
respondent No.3 to the response filed by the banks.
9. Mr. Jai Munim, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 was
therefore asked if there was anything in said reply dated 30.01.2017 (a)
which, in any way, contradicted or contested the basic submissions of the
banks that there was an oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru on
26.07.2013 and orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 were passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; (b) whether the text and the
purport of the undertaking and the orders were different from that
suggested in said response of the banks; and (c) whether any explanation
6
was forthcoming in the reply of respondent No.3 to support the stand that
he was not guilty of violation of said orders.
10. Mr. Munim, learned Advocate was unable to refer to any such
portion from the response of respondent No.3 on aforesaid aspects but
advanced submissions touching upon the questions whether the directions
issued by this Court were violated and whether this Court ought to have
proceeded to exercise contempt jurisdiction when the contempt, on second
count, was of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
11. The Review Petitions were listed for oral hearing to ascertain
whether the error on part of this Court in not taking into account the reply
dated 30.01.2017 had caused any prejudice to respondent No.3. The reply
dated 30.01.2017 had reiterated the submissions advanced earlier by
respondent No.3 and had not in any way contradicted the factum of oral
undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru and the orders passed by the High
Court of Karnataka or had offered any explanation why said oral
undertaking and the orders could not be relied upon.
12. Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully
considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions
were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our
considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-
7
hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out
any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
13. These Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
14. In Paras 30 and 31 of the judgment under review the contempt
petitions were directed to be listed on 10.07.2017 for hearing respondent
No.3 with regard to the proposed punishment. Now that the Review
Petitions are dismissed, we direct respondent No.3 to appear before this
Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m. and also direct the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to facilitate and ensure the
presence of respondent No.3 before this Court on that day. A copy of this
judgement be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for facility and
compliance.
15. List the Contempt Petitions on 05.10.2020.
……….……………..J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
……….…………….J
(Ashok Bhushan)
New Delhi;
August 31, 2020.
